So, in other words, you're ignorant of this subject, and interested only in attempting to chastise those who disagree with you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Nope, that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out that your "expertise" is used to rationalize your lack of empathy for living things.

It is an expertise at the service of those who want to manipulate the environment and the life of other creatures for the aggrandizement and benefit of humans. It is not intended to learn to live in harmony with all forms of life. See the difference?

So, in other words, you're ignorant of this subject, and interested only in attempting to chastise those who disagree with you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Nope, that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out that your "expertise" is used to rationalize your lack of empathy for living things.

It is an expertise at the service of those who want to manipulate the environment and the life of other creatures for the aggrandizement and benefit of humans. It is not intended to learn to live in harmony with all forms of life. See the difference?

So, in other words, you're ignorant of this subject, and interested only in attempting to chastise those who disagree with you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

Nope, that is not what I am doing. I am pointing out that your "expertise" is used to rationalize your lack of empathy for living things.

It is an expertise at the service of those who want to manipulate the environment and the life of other creatures for the aggrandizement and benefit of humans. It is not intended to learn to live in harmony with all forms of life. See the difference?

Nothing pisses me off more than some jerk telling me what's in my head!Plus I have Aspergers so it is next to impossible to guess what's in my head.

Exactly. I'm not interested in hearing, for the 10,000th time, that I'm a pathological freak because I hunt animals, and apparently, some people find that offensive and icky.

I would be interested in hearing some substantive claims for why wolves here in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming should not be at least somewhat controled through lethal measures -- including some public hunting.

But, as I said, any takers need to be prepared, because I know this issue very well.

Exactly. I'm not interested in hearing, for the 10,000th time, that I'm a pathological freak because I hunt animals, and apparently, some people find that offensive and icky.

Maybe if you paid attention it woudn't have to be repeated so many times.

I would be interested in hearing some substantive claims for why wolves here in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming should not be at least somewhat controled through lethal measures -- including some public hunting.

Here is a "substantive claim" : They have been created by the same forces that created you. You have absolutely no notion why you or them were created, but you ascribe yourself the right to eliminate them.

That comes from an egocentric attitude that puts yourself at the center of creation and guides your "expertise" to do whatever is necessary to eliminate anything that is a nuissance to you.

This exclusivist and self centered frame of mind is the opposite of the inclusivess and respect for life that the best minds of mankind have been trying to teach through the ages.

Animals can act this way because they are guided by their instincts, not their egos.

But, as I said, any takers need to be prepared, because I know this issue very well.

I am sure someone who will want to play your "what is better, shooting or poisoning?" or "how many should we allow to live" games with you, in which you can flaunt you expertise. I am not one of them.

Exactly. I'm not interested in hearing, for the 10,000th time, that I'm a pathological freak because I hunt animals, and apparently, some people find that offensive and icky.

Maybe if you paid attention it woudn't have to be repeated so many times.

I would be interested in hearing some substantive claims for why wolves here in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming should not be at least somewhat controled through lethal measures -- including some public hunting.

Here is a "substantive claim" : They have been created by the same forces that created you. You have absolutely no notion why you or them were created, but you ascribe yourself the right to eliminate them.

That comes from an egocentric attitude that puts yourself at the center of creation and guides your "expertise" to do whatever is necessary to eliminate anything that is a nuissance to you.

This exclusivist and self centered frame of mind is the opposite of the inclusivess and respect for life that the best minds of mankind have been trying to teach through the ages.

Animals can act this way because they are guided by their instincts, not their egos.

But, as I said, any takers need to be prepared, because I know this issue very well.

I am sure someone who will want to play your "what is better, shooting or poisoning?" or "how many should we allow to live" games with you, in which you can flaunt you expertise. I am not one of them.

Yes, you think killing things is icky and offensive -- and I'm a wicked, broken person because I hunt. I get that.

Do you have any substantive points to make on the issue of wolf recovery and management in the great states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming? Or, am I just beating my head against a wall here?

I would be interested in hearing some substantive claims for why wolves here in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming should not be at least somewhat controled through lethal measures -- including some public hunting.

Well, have you read any of these 4 articles solfeggio provided and considered what these experts have to say, keeping in mind that these experts don't start with a pro-hunter, pr-money philosophy?

What do you mean by "some" public hunting, anyway? Trapping wolves in a leghold trap and then having people with rifles take pot shots at it until it's dead, and then posting it and the bloodstained snow of the target area on Facebook?

I would be interested in hearing some substantive claims for why wolves here in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming should not be at least somewhat controled through lethal measures -- including some public hunting.

Well, have you read any of these 4 articles solfeggio provided and considered what these experts have to say, keeping in mind that these experts don't start with a pro-hunter, pr-money philosophy?

What do you mean by "some" public hunting, anyway? Trapping wolves in a leghold trap and then having people with rifles take pot shots at it until it's dead, and then posting it and the bloodstained snow of the target area on Facebook?

There are good points against hunting wolves. Hell, I just read some of them not five minutes ago in an essay published in one of our local papers here.

None of them have been raised here yet.

However, IMO, the preponderence still weighs in favor of at least some wolf hunting.

I'd love to discuss it, but so far, all I'm getting is tirades against hunting and complaints about goonish postings of icky images online -- as if a few A-holes on Facebook should set the tone of discussion on this matter.

And none of those articles Solf posted is very impressive, BTW. One has to do with red wolves in the southwest -- totally different situation.

The others look like very ill-informed hype sites. Nobody in the scientific community I'm aware of (and I know quite a few people) is disputing that the gray wolf population in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming has far exceeded the agreed-upon recovery goals that were set when the program began in the mid -1990s..

The debate, such as it is, is where to go from here, particularly, how to secure long-term genetic diversity among the various sub-populations -- and how hunting might affect that.

The wolves are not "on the brink of extinction." That's just pure bullshit, and any biologist could tell you that.

There are good points against hunting wolves. Hell, I just read some of them not five minutes ago in an essay published in one of our local papers here.

None of them have been raised here yet.

However, IMO, the preponderence still weighs in favor of at least some wolf hunting.

I'd love to discuss it, but so far, all I'm getting is tirades against hunting and complaints about goonish postings of icky images online -- as if a few A-holes on Facebook should set the tone of discussion on this matter.

And none of those articles Solf posted is very impressive, BTW. One has to do with red wolves in the southwest -- totally different situation.

The others look like very ill-informed hype sites. Nobody in the scientific community I'm aware of (and I know quite a few people) is disputing that the gray wolf population in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming has far exceeded the agreed-upon recovery goals that were set when the program began in the mid -1990s..

The debate, such as it is, is where to go from here. The wolves are not "on the brink of extinction." That's just pure bullshit, and any biologist could tell you that.

Ok....so excluding the sorry fact of a forest service employee posting what you consider "icky" pictures online -- and getting away with it -- and which, apparently, you think we shouldn't talk about, you disagree that wolves, among other species can and have been hunted to extinction or near extinction and any biologist who disagrees with your solution of hunting them isn't a real biologist.

Black Lives MatterMuslim Lives MatterThere is no such thing as "illegals"LGBT Lives Matter

"If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"

There are good points against hunting wolves. Hell, I just read some of them not five minutes ago in an essay published in one of our local papers here.

None of them have been raised here yet.

However, IMO, the preponderence still weighs in favor of at least some wolf hunting.

I'd love to discuss it, but so far, all I'm getting is tirades against hunting and complaints about goonish postings of icky images online -- as if a few A-holes on Facebook should set the tone of discussion on this matter.

And none of those articles Solf posted is very impressive, BTW. One has to do with red wolves in the southwest -- totally different situation.

The others look like very ill-informed hype sites. Nobody in the scientific community I'm aware of (and I know quite a few people) is disputing that the gray wolf population in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming has far exceeded the agreed-upon recovery goals that were set when the program began in the mid -1990s..

The debate, such as it is, is where to go from here. The wolves are not "on the brink of extinction." That's just pure bullshit, and any biologist could tell you that.

Ok....so excluding the sorry fact of a forest service employee posting what you consider "icky" pictures online -- and getting away with it -- and which, apparently, you think we shouldn't talk about, you disagree that wolves, among other species can and have been hunted to extinction or near extinction and any biologist who disagrees with your solution of hunting them isn't a real biologist.

You're agruing from at least 70 years or so in the past if you're trying to make the point about species being over-hunted to extinction.

It's not "my" solution to hunt them. I'm not planning to hunt wolves. Public hunting is part of a managment package that many, many experts from many agencies have spent years working on.

And the sort of hunting they are using or proposing is a far cry from the all-out free-for-all that drove wolves out of these parts to begin with. It involves restricted hunting zones, kill quotas, and seasonal hunting only.

And, honestly, it wasn't really hunting -- in the sense of dudes out there with guns -- that really did the wolves in back in the old days. Wolves get too smart for that sort of thing very quickly.

It was widespread, government funded poisoning programs.

Once again, the recovered gray wolf population in Montana-Idaho-Wyoming is not teetering on the verge of being wiped out because of hunting. That's just utter B.S.

Oh yeah, good ole "management". Comes in "packages' nowadays, does it? Modern wonders shall never cease.

According to the experts profiled in the articles linked in the OP, it's the state "management" agencies that failed after pro-hunters got wolves removed from federal protection.

But, if hunting doesn't help to cause species to go extinct, then why were wolves protected species in the first place? Or any other federally-protected species. Funny that hunting protected species isn't allowed in management packages!

The pro-hunter/pro-gun/anti-gun control faction holds all the cards, gets what it wants, and yet, apparently is completely impotent in doing something about the kinds of abuses that were reported in the articles offered in the OP. Why am I not surprised?

I can certainly understand if any of my own passions in life were to be tarnished by the bad acts of a few, whether it be the people that take entertainment in torturing wolves to death, or people like Zimmerman, but the ones to blame would be the bad actors, not those who support measures that prevent the sort of nonsense we all have to continue to put up with because of the special interests of the few.

Black Lives MatterMuslim Lives MatterThere is no such thing as "illegals"LGBT Lives Matter

"If we jump too quickly to the universal formulation, 'all lives matter,' then we miss the fact that black people have not yet been included in the idea of 'all lives.'"